Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

Hack ...... on the continuum of Capitalism at one end and Communism on the other, for us, as opposed to say some Scandinavian countries and perhaps Canada, middle ground is hard to achieve. That doesn't mean that, in general, some middle ground, political an/or economic approach can't succeed. It can and as you point out, there are examples.

Fundamentally, the way I perceive our political system to operate - not very well at present - wealth redistribution, as it is typically found in socialist countries that have achieved a blend of socialism and capitalism as a matter of political compromise and economic or tax policy, isn't going to work in the US. There isn't the political will or environment to, IMO, achieve a acceptable level of wealth re-distribution. It will go too far for my taste in our current political climate - the slippery slope argument that I think applies to what I consider to be crazy tax policy coming out of AOC's mouth and that mirrors most of what Sanders has offered as well...... he's just more politically savvy with respect to how he articulates it.

[hack]

The policies are merely a rollback to what was in place at a time when American prosperity was growing. What is so crazy about going back to a set of policies that once worked well here, and still do elsewhere?

[Kapture1]

The policies are merely a rollback to what was in place at a time when American prosperity was growing. What is so crazy about going back to a set of policies that once worked well here, and still do elsewhere?

the top tax rate of something like 91% was paid by no one. Everyone that would have been taxed moved their wealth overseas or in the name of a corporation, because the corporate rate has never been 90%, or even close to it.

And the top tax bracket back then was like 3,426,776 in inflation adjusted dollars when filing jointly. today it kicks in at 466,951.


so yes, lets compare notes on the 1950's tax policy.

[crashcourse]

Palin-Cortez/Bernie Sanders in 2020!!!

The Dem Dream Team!

I dream you would stfu

[Jeff Buchanan]

........... What is so crazy about going back to a set of policies that once worked well here, and still do elsewhere?

I think I answered that by stating, "for my taste ......"

What AOC declared in an off-the-cuff remark about "70% marginal tax rate" for certain earners is about the same as Fidel telling Kennedy, indirectly, he's not a communist. It goes to my slippery slope argument, just substitute Socialist for Communist.

There are a lot of questions being asked about what she actually meant when she was talking about raising taxes and what effect such elevated tax rates would have on the US economy and on the the US budget. As far as I can tell, there is not agreement among economists on this question and, as well, it depends on how economists are asked the question. So, a lot of detail that is not amenable to a useful discussion here exists.

In general, and considering the way such policy might be implemented in the US, I'm in the camp that feels raising marginal tax rates to support social welfare programs that Sanders/AOC and others are advocating or to stop the world from ending in 2028 due to climate change are not a good idea. This stuff always starts out small and then has the potential, in our political system especially, to get incrementally more crippling to economic growth while, in the end, doing nothing more than increasing the budget deficit. I think I can dig stuff up that will support that view over the last 100 years or so but, you and I are coming from different places on this singular issue of AOC's proposal to elevate marginal tax rates to pay for what she and others on the left are advocating for. So, if you are simply interested in showing that I am mistaken in this view, I already know how you feel and how we probably differ.

[hack]

well I think it's a question of whether you are applying the eyeball test or fancy stats, so to speak. Economics has changed compared to when supply-side economics was invented. There wasn't big data then. There is now. Back then, all we had was theory. We now have the ability to observe reality and put it into a database that can be queried.

I do agree with you on incrementalism, though I do not see a slippery slope argument. Again, on the spectrum of economic policy are all kinds of countries at all kinds of spots and they are not sliding all over the place. That part of your post does not square with observable reality. but where I do agree with you on incremental ism is that it works both ways. today's conservatism makes Reagan look like a socialist. That was a period of prosperity. That should be food for thought for you, Jeff.

[iam416]

Buchanan:

Marginal rates move up and down. Social programs ratchet. Palin-Cortez and her ilk want the social programs. They also like to punish successful people, but that's an ancillary benefit to the confiscatory taxes rates. The real key is the social program and those are so extreme they may actually ratchet marginal rates up to a floor that is gross.

[iam416]

I'm all for the top marginal rate that Reagan pushed for and won. I think that's a great starting point. And the data is remarkable -- the share of the incomes taxes paid by the top 1% increased significantly over the course of Reagan's administration as he persistently slashed the top rate down to something sensible. Excellent benchmark supported by the data.

[Kapture1]

I mean who wouldn't want to spend 100,000,000,000,000 per year?

I think that would be fun.


I am most curious to know why the fuck anyone should care about what Palin-Cortez thinks is moral. I hear her favorite talking point about what's moral, and policies that are moral, and too many of my critics worry about being factually right, but how about being MORALLY right. The left just a few years ago completely objected to the right forcing their idea of morals on society, now here we are. Where we will end up is being arrested for not letting my 9 year old daughter go out on a date with a 42 year old man.

No, we are not going to live under the morals of the left.

[hack]

Moving from today to 50% as a top margin, if that's what you mean, would certainly be progress. And if one is an incrementalist -- as we all should be, as elections are a periodic check-in on the direction of policy -- then that is in ways a defensible position. In other ways, it is not, if you're talking about a policy debate. Striking whilst the iron is hot is seen as the best way these days, whether incrementalism is healthy or not. Crisis capitalism on the right; torches-and-pitchforks on the left. Galbraith has been proven right over and over again in saying that "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage".

What data are you talking about there? You'd have to account for capital gains at the very least, plus some other variables, to have a conclusion. The whole argument rests on the notion of capital flight past a certain tax-rate threshold, and it would be difficult to compare the portability of capital then to what it is now. Would have to have a defensible methodology for controlling for that variable.

[iam416]

Reagan cut the top marginal rate to 28% by the time he was through. So, if one invokes the Spirit of Reagan they ought to ride with, you know, what he wanted to (and did) do.

The IRS has lots of data of who pays what and what the AGI is sorted by various percentiles. It's readily available

[iam416]

And, of course, the US already has a strongly progressive tax system. Those households making $150,000 or more (top20%) will pay 87% of income tax (while accounting for 52% of income). The bottom 60% ($87,000 or less) will receive about 27% of the income and pay 0% of the taxes (net).

And quasi-socialist branch of the D party seems set on making the system even more progressive to fund enormous social programs.

[iam416]

Of course, that's just federal income taxes. It doesn't account for various local taxes or specific social program payments that are massively regressive (for good reason, I suppose, given the nature of the programs). But, we're talking Palin-Cortez and 70%, and that's federal income tax, so that's what ought to be discussed.

[Ghengis Jon]

The SCOTUS should be overturning the lower court ruling on this one. A 'premises' license allows one keep but not bear arms. Seems pretty cut and dried, but I don't know under what basis the lower court ruled.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns/supreme-court-to-hear-biggest-gun-rights-case-since-2010-idUSKCN1PG1QQ

[hack]

Income-tax analysis is not a complete analysis. Capital gains just to start.

Re Reagan, I invoked the period as a whole, and not a point in time closer to the end of his administration. Considering a smaller fraction of his period would be less useful, obviously. And the spirit of it all would include a whole lot more than one aspect of tax policy.

Those two variables I mentioned would need to be accounted for for any data to be relevant, as would some others I'm sure. Those are just two off the top of my head if you're looking for something comparable. Feel free to introduce it into the duscussion, but, levelling up, I also don't see the value of examining this in a vacuum. Tax policy is correlated to global factors, as it is in many ways a zero-sum game. Everybody wants R&D investment, but the global total has not risen apace with the amount of incentive available across the global economy.

Another level up, if you'd like to get specific, would be that tax policy is just one driver of corporate decisionmaking on where to locate. If it was the only one, you'd presumably see all R&D spending migrate to low- or no-tax jurisdictions, which obviously has not happened, despite the best efforts of places like Dubai and Singapore. So all that's a limiting factor to any analysis that starts and ends with ``corporations will go elsewhere if we raise taxes."